Loretta Sheppard v. Arthur H. Lampel, and Seymour Rubinoff, Loretta Sheppard v. Arthur H. Lampel, and Seymour Rubinoff

892 F.2d 84 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Loretta SHEPPARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur H. LAMPEL, Defendant, and Seymour Rubinoff, Defendant-Appellant. Loretta SHEPPARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur H. LAMPEL, Defendant-Appellant, and Seymour Rubinoff, Defendant. Nos. 88-6096, 88-6098. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 4, 1989. * Decided Dec. 13, 1989. Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Appellants Seymour Rubinoff and Arthur Lampel ("appellants") appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for sanctions against Loretta Sheppard ("Sheppard") pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm. 3 * Sheppard brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in district court against the appellants, alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when a state court judge, in an underlying divorce action, held her in contempt and ordered her…